Why I Choose to Believe the Bible (Sermon by Voddie Baucham of Grace Family Baptist Church in Spring, TX

Curious as to his and your thoughts on Romans 16:1 concerning Phoebe the female deacon?

I'd much rather hear your thoughts on why you believe the bible to be true.

quote:

---

Curious as to his and your thoughts on Romans 16:1 concerning Phoebe the female deacon?

---

I haven't listened to the sermon in the OP yet, but you may like this sermon on 1 Timothy 2:12: Twisted Scripture: 1 Timothy 2:12

And of course, several noted religious scholars including Fudge and Stott on the theory of annnihilation rather than eternal torment. With Biblical sources used.

And the point being is that except for the TRUE fundamentals, I. E. Jesus is the Son of God, died for our sins, rose on the third day and if we believe on him we shall not perish, everything else can be read and interpreted differently by Spirit filled serious Christian scholars. That is why I don't like tracts or signs. Happy to witness and do it all day long but I stick to the TRUE fundamentals.

quote:

---

I'd much rather hear your thoughts on why you believe the bible to be true.

---

Why, so you can tell me "that's not what Paul really meant"?

Like what Paul wrote in Romans 16:1? I assume then that you and Pastor Baucom have female deacons, correct?

quote:

---

That is why I don't like tracts or signs. Happy to witness and do it all day long but I stick to the TRUE fundamentals.

---

doc, you're a better man than me if you're able to witness all day long to everyone you encounter (stores, crowds, neighbors, etc). I do speak to people about the gospel, but tracts are good to leave with people who I don't have to talk to in depth.

quote:

---

quote:

---

I'd much rather hear your thoughts on why you believe the bible to be true.

---

Why, so you can tell me "that's not what Paul really meant"?

---

Or what Paul was saying has been misinterpreted, which delving into the context and original language used would appear to point to.

Oh I just do it with my patients. We pray all the time with them. And the problem with the tracts are I don't believe in their concept of Hell. And they also portray God as a wrathful, vengeful God which is totally different than my experience. And I am not a better man than anyone as only God is good.
What about female deacons as Paul wrote about?

My issue with tracts is that it seems to place the focus on getting people to recite a prayer vs actual discipleship. I grew up as a baptist, and we would go door-to-door with those things. Even if we got people to pray a prayer, there was no follow-up. There was no discipleship. Perhaps it was just every church I grew up in, and those were the exception. Perhaps it's because it was fundamental/independent baptists, and other baptist groups are different. I don't know. I left the baptist denomination as soon as I could.

I was saved because of a tract. I believe they are an effective tool used by God.

Yep sounds familiar retired.

quote:

---

And of course, several noted religious scholars including Fudge and Stott on the theory of annnihilation rather than eternal torment. With Biblical sources used.

---

Doc, religious scholars have come up with just about every doctrine or counter doctrine possible. (RetiredAg regulatory posts religious scholars that deny the substitutionary atonement of Jesus Christ, diehard03 completely ignores or redefines Jude 7 and so on). I am aware of Clark Pinnock's view on annihilation (as well as Hebraic faith circles, JWs and SDAs views as well). I don't know much about Fudge or Stott or if they possess any enlightenment on the matter that hasn't already been presented. I should check them out to better discern their views before offering criticism.

Regarding Phoebe in Romans 16, "diakonos" in the general sense means servant or helper (which is one of the roles of a deacon, but I don't believe Phoebe was an ordained deacon as many people are servants without holding a church office). If she was, Paul violated his own writings as he laid out the prerequisites of church offices in 1 Timothy. To be honest, Romans 16:1 in the KJV reads "servant of the church". I know some people on here get their feathers ruffled whenever I say the KJV is the best translation of the Textus Receptus, but I believe it's true. I definitely realize the KJV isn't the only Bible, but I have yet to see anyone here provide a reason why any of the contemporary versions are more accurate.

Others can't come close because they are based on textual criticism. You would be comparing apples and oranges.

I agree with you that religious scholars have come up with just about every interpretation imaginable. But you only agree with the ones that agree with your views, correct?

Are all these other folks demonic or not filled with the Spirit?

quote:

---

My issue with tracts is that it seems to place the focus on getting people to recite a prayer vs actual discipleship. I grew up as a baptist, and we would go door-to-door with those things. Even if we got people to pray a prayer, there was no follow-up. There was no discipleship. Perhaps it was just every church I grew up in, and those were the exception. Perhaps it's because it was fundamental/independent baptists, and other baptist groups are different. I don't know. I left the baptist denomination as soon as I could.

---

RetireAg, I strongly opposed to the "sinner's prayer". I also am a huge proponent of disciplining new converts, showing them how to grow in their faith. As Martin stated, he was saved from a tract and I hear testimonies of others that were as well on a regular basis. I don't think someone reads a tract once and BAM! gets saved. It's the Holy Spirit of God that draws and convicts (John 6:44), but many people get born again from tracts. To be honest, I am much more bother by today's "social gospel" than from a good Bible based tract that preaches against sin and uses the law to convict and then points the humbled sinner to the redemptive work of Jesus Christ.

With a good gospel tract (that includes contact information or the name of a solid Bible preaching church) you can distribute the Word of God to thousands of people in just a few hours.

quote:

---

RetiredAg regulatory posts religious scholars that deny the substitutionary atonement of Jesus Christ

---

The only things I've posted on atonement was about the Christus Victor view of atonement, which falls under the umbrella of substitutionary atonement. Now, if you are talking about rejecting the penal substitution theory, then yes, I have posted people that reject the penal substitution theory. They also give their biblical support for their view (Christus Victor). The penal substitution view of atonement was not the one taught by the early church.

What is the "social gospel"?

Martin that is great. What about the tract convicted you if I may ask? And we're you brought up in the church? Thanks

quote:

---

Are all these other folks demonic or not filled with the Spirit?

---

Doc, I don't know. Dave Hunt was a solid Bible teacher that seemed to believe the flames of hell were metaphorical (I realize no Christian has 100% correct doctrine and I disagree on some eschatology points and potentially other things with some of the godliest men I know). All believers are filled with the spirit, so I don't believe in any second blessing like the charismatics preach. I will say that on a whole, there does seem to be a lot less sense of urgency to preach the gospel by those who succumb to the annihilation view (and understandably so). I believe hell is literal, because I can't believe it's better to pluck out my eye and cut off my hand than to be annihilated (Matthew 18:9). Jesus Christ preached far more about hell than he did heaven. I'm not a smart man, but it seems to me that if the Great White Throne Judgement culminated with annihilation, Christ would instead have spent all his time selling the beauty of heaven rather than wasting time on warning of hell.

quote:

---

What is the "social gospel"?

---

From a quick google search: "a movement in America, chiefly in the early part of the 20th century, stressing the social teachings of Jesus and their applicability to public life. "

Well we will agree to disagree Tampa. And our disagreements are not on the most important fundamentals concerning salvation. God Bless.

quote:

---

I will say that on a whole, there does seem to be a lot less sense of urgency to preach the gospel by those who succumb to the annihilation view (and understandably so)

---

It's only understandable if your motivation to spread the gospel is out of fear of others going to hell. It's not about avoiding hell. It's about spending eternity with God.

quote:

---

quote:

---

I will say that on a whole, there does seem to be a lot less sense of urgency to preach the gospel by those who succumb to the annihilation view (and understandably so)

---

It's only understandable if your motivation to spread the gospel is out of fear of others going to hell. It's not about avoiding hell. It's about spending eternity with God.

---

RetiredAg,

It's absolutely about spending an eternity with God and worshippinghim for his honor and his glory. We share the gospel because we are commanded to (Mark 16:15). Keeping people out of hell isn't my only motivation for sharing the gospel, but I'd be lying if I said I didn't have a deep burden for the lost. Jesus wept over the unbelief in Jerusalem (Luke 19:41), so how much more should we be moved (even unto tears) knowing so many people are dying and going to hell each and every day. I sincerely question the conversion of those that "get saved" just to get the "getout of hell free" card. Many people are broken and they need to know there's hope in Jesus Christ (Jude 22).

However, the social gospel and emerging movement seek tosidestep repentance and avoid issues like sin and hell. This contemporary idea that if you make people feel good or incorporate pragmatic gimmicks you'll get more people saved is a fallacy. We have more churches than ever, and the American church is weak and powerless compared to the believers around the world. When people have no idea what we are saved from (sin and hell), the picture of a savior is rather unnecessary. We are commanded to be "gentle as doves" (Matthew 10:16), but yet to speak the truth in love (Ephesians 4:15). I believe that man is radically depraved and in our natural state, we don't see our need for a savior. God's love isn't the eros euphoria the natural man feeds on, but rather was demonstrated at the cross in that he made provision for the
wicked to be forgiven and restored. But God commendeth his love toward us, inthat, while we were yet sinners, Christ died for us Romans 5:8

quote:

---

quote:

---

quote:

---

I'd much rather hear your thoughts on why you believe the bible to be true.

---

Why, so you can tell me "that's not what Paul really meant"?

---

Or what Paul was saying has been misinterpreted, which delving into the context and original language used would appear to point to.

---

Yes, amazing that the Word of God has been distorted for centuries, but thankfully our modern day liberal theologians like Greg Boyd and Brian Zahnd have it all figured out.

For the time will come when they will not endure sound doctrine; but after their own lusts shall they heap to themselves teachers, having itching ears -2 Timothy 4:3

quote:

---

Yes, amazing that the Word of God has been distorted for centuries, but thankfully our modern day liberal theologians like Greg Boyd and Brian Zahnd have it all figured out.

---

Ah, the liberal accusation. Decided to go with something other than the baseless "secular humanist" accusation? Considering you mentioned atonement earlier, you do realize that their views on atonement (actually Boyd. Not sure what Zahnd's are) are more consistent with the early church than your penal substitution theory, right? Also, nobody said they have it all figured out. They just seem to realize the church didn't start with Augustine, and that the views of the early church are actually valuable to understanding the scriptures.

But the scriptures have been distorted for centuries. Surely you aren't denying that, right?

One last thing, then off to church, I do love the irony of the verse you posted. If there were internet forums around back when penal substitution theory first started appearing, I bet Christians would used that verse against them.

If Paul didn't write 1 or 2 Timothy, do we still have to pay attention to it?

quote:

---

Paul violated his own writings as he laid out the prerequisites of church offices in 1 Timothy

---

Most scholars don't consider 1st timothy written by paul. And with regard to the OP his arguments for historicity are vapid.

quote:

---

quote:

---

Paul violated his own writings as he laid out the prerequisites of church offices in 1 Timothy

---

Most scholars don't consider 1st timothy written by paul. And with regard to the OP his arguments for historicity are vapid.

---

To whom do "most scholars" attribute the epistles of Paul's disciple, Timothy?

quote:

---

To whom do "most scholars" attribute the epistles of Paul's disciple, Timothy?

---

The specific author is unknown. To reject pauline authorship, you do not need to know the exact author. Just as you don't need to know the exact root of 963 off the top of your head to know it isn't 8. A little bit of study, or even a simple google search will disabuse you of the notion that you need to put most scholars in quotes.

quote:

---

quote:

---

To whom do "most scholars" attribute the epistles of Paul's disciple, Timothy?

---

The specific author is unknown. To reject pauline authorship, you do not need to know the exact author. Just as you don't need to know the exact root of 963 off the top of your head to know it isn't 8. A little bit of study, or even a simple google search will disabuse you of the notion that you need to put most scholars in quotes.

---

Why would I reject the Pauline epistles (and thus most on the New Testament) because some secular scholars say it wasn't written by Paul? I believe Paul authored both books of Timothy because he said he did. Hebrews may or may not have been written by Paul, but that doesn't negate the authority of scripture.

Love Voddie

quote:

---

Why would I reject the Pauline epistles (and thus most on the New Testament) because some secular scholars say it wasn't written by Paul?

---

Who said it was some secular scholars? Its most scholars of all type of back ground, it's most scholars period, including the bible believing variety. And you should reject or accept the pauline epistles as authentic based on the evidence laid out by those scholars rather than blindly accept what you wish to be true. However, you appear totally ignorant of the scholarship on the issue so I will note that many books are near universally attributed to paul (First Thessalonians for instance). And having clear works written by paul is a great measure with which to determine which books are not written by him.

quote:

---

I believe Paul authored both books of Timothy because he said he did.

---

The author claims to be paul, but the evidence doesn't support that claim.